John Sarbanes: “I observe to the Senator that the only reason you got that supervision was because of the consent decree. The reason you…”

“I observe to the Senator that the only reason you got that supervision was because of the consent decree. The reason you had an election officer in 1991, and the reason you had one in 1996 was because of the consent decree. You don't automatically get election officers to supervise union elections. You are absolutely right, ordinarily union elections are paid for by the union. It is a private association. They pay for the elections. There is no election officer to supervise those elections. Now, what the consent decree gave you was an election officer because the Government wanted to supervise the election as a way of rooting out corruption and the influence of the mob in the Teamsters Union. They got a consent decree and it gave them an election officer in 1991, and also gave them an election officer in 1996 because, obviously, the Bush administration didn't want to have just one election and then they are off the hook. They wanted to keep the supervision for the 1996 election. But in order to get that agreement and that understanding in the consent decree, they agreed to pay the costs of the supervision for the 1996 election, which is, in a sense, the election that is still before us, since it has never been certified. Now you are coming in, and you want to in effect eliminate an option that is available to the judge in terms of carrying out the consent decree. My point is that is carrying with it the very high risk that you eliminate the election officer.”